Thread: science proves fate?

Hmm... well, our neurons are pretty tiny...

And there are some notable scientists who promoted the idea of the quantum brain. I'm reading a book by Roger Penrose at the moment in which he does that.

But I think you're right. If you had a complete map of our brain cells, the electrical activity would be completely predictable, I think. Once a neuron fires, there's no randomness about the fact that it's going to reach another neuron. Waves of polarisation don't just disappear due to quantum effects.

So free will is probably a delusion, I think...

Regarding conciousness though, perhaps quantum mechanics does play a role. I mean, with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, for one thing; suddenly, the role of the concious observer becomes an intrinsic part of the workings of physics. I find that to be a very interesting link.

Actually I don't. Consciousness is just perception. Or awareness, if you like that word better. A person not conscious of what he/she is doing actually doesn't become aware of the reason he/she's doing it, what happens during it and the probable outcome. Maggot brain is pretty much unconscious.


Awareness is like an overlying 6th sense (or 7th if you consider body equilibrium). It's more or less the ability to determine whether your arm is lying by your side or above your head, without using other senses. Awareness kind of rules the other senses, working all the stimuli together to create a one-and-best outcome. For that, consicousness is pretty much a treasure in evolution: a slightly more consicous being has much more chances of survival.

Quantum brain is BS in my humble opinion. Brain cells are just like any other cell. Quantum brain theory is just what a guy made up because he didn't liek the idea of not having free will.

Okay, so; the reason why there are no mechanisms to determine which way an electron will go is because it doesn't go anywhere. There is no random choice between right and left, it is already right and left at the same time. This applies to all things; not just electrons. Scientifically speaking, everything is everywhere until someone or something decides where they think it is. As crazy as it may sound, this is scientifically tested and verified theory. Look up Superpositions.

Well I'm going to start by disagreeing with the idea of 'random'. Random, I don't think, exists. I've thought about it. "God does not play dice." - sure, you know what Einstein means here, but think of it literally: Dice obey the laws of physics. They are not random at all. Even random number generators are not random, they are just so complex and finely programmed that there is always a different number (in some cases). So they are not random: they follow a formula.

So how can people/scientists be saying, basically, "Oh I don't get it, it must be random."

I don't know what else to say. Obviously there's something we don't know.

I can't believe that physicists can be saying that "it must be random".

The Particle physics just gets smaller and smaller, we just keep digging deeper. "Oh look, there's more to an electron than I thought!" (pardon the pun )


Now on a completely different slant: If consciousness is an illusion of composed/chemicals with electricity, then might you think that your computer has a consciousness? (That doesn't necessarily mean: it has control, but it has something experienced) Haha, how awesome. Be careful, Bill.

This is a great topic.

Yeah, if you think about it, I believe we are capable of building a conscious machine someday

but first we must find out what consciousness really is (everyone has a different opinion )

Nice topic, Kromoh. I'm a great believer of metaphysical determinism. I would echo Moonbeam's post; even with uncertainties, free will still does not exist.

The best way to sum up the topic is that, if free will does or does not exist, either way it's best to act as if it does.

I prefer to take it as non existant. Then I just think to myself "The ability ot be a great man or a moron is only inside me. Has everything I've experienced gotten me smart enough to choose to right path?"

It basically excludes the idea of failure. And that is great, 'cuz I'm a chicken when it comes to making choices

Wouldn't you think that scientists have already proved fate from science?

I mean, this concept isn't really that hard to figure out. Why hasn't anyone considered this, out in the world?

(maybe I just have never heard them say it...)

Originally Posted by really

I mean, this concept isn't really that hard to figure out. Why hasn't anyone considered this, out in the world?

The concepts brought up here are a large part of determinists' arguments against free will, and although many people have thought up the idea by themselves, they were by no means the first to do so.

Originally Posted by really

Well I'm going to start by disagreeing with the idea of 'random'. Random, I don't think, exists. I've thought about it. "God does not play dice." - sure, you know what Einstein means here, but think of it literally: Dice obey the laws of physics. They are not random at all. Even random number generators are not random, they are just so complex and finely programmed that there is always a different number (in some cases). So they are not random: they follow a formula.

That isn't what Einstein was saying; the dice he refers to are completely random.

Most scientists believed that events on the quantum scale were inherently unpredictable, but Einstein always maintained that this was absurd.

You're right in that there could be an underlying mechanism hidden much deeper, and that's basically what Einstein was saying.

But like I say, we are beings with logic determined by the world around us, and the world around us is macroscopic. Perhaps it is no wonder that we cannot stomach the idea of randomness, simply because it bears no relevance to the world which we observe.

Very true, I agree with both of you, Pensive Patrick; Xei.

I hope this doesn't look off topic, but what do you think would happen in a hypothetical situation, where many of the best scientists, philosophers, chemists, socialists, skeptics, psychics and biologists (to name the least, even including religious leaders..) were seated in the one room together, to figure something out? It could be chaos, but it might be interesting.


Does anyone know if physicists have found any patterns or relations between many of the 'constants', that many have proposed and proved? I wonder what could happen there, perhaps there could be a constant for the constants!

Originally Posted by Xei

But like I say, we are beings with logic determined by the world around us, and the world around us is macroscopic. Perhaps it is no wonder that we cannot stomach the idea of randomness, simply because it bears no relevance to the world which we observe.

I say it's the other way round.

We are macroscopic beings, and have apparent free will. It doesn't prove right when we examine it further, though.

And even if it was random: it still wouldn't prove free will.

Yep, I do agree that traditional views of free will may well be as flawed as views of say, the Cartesian Theater.

I was just talking about randomness itself, not implications upon free will, which I agree are dubious.

The other day, I found out that the so called ''randomness" can be explained when considering more dimensions, like about 11.

Has anyone heard of the string theory?

Originally Posted by Neruo

It even really doesn't matter weather we Can or can Not theoretically know what is going to happen, because I don't think we ever can. And if we could predict stuff, know the future, the 'fate' of the universe, we would act upon it, causing some sort of a paradox I guess.

That paradox doesn't prove true if determinism is true.


Our "action upon it" would be already determined since the beggining of time. Our predicting the future would be already determined. Would it make things become more the way we wanted it to? Yes. (Just like in some mathematical operations: two variables, one result). The machine would consider our action upon the future when predicting the future. Would the prediction become a paradox? No.

I've tried to explain that paradox before, but it was always so hard for me to articulate why changing the future wouldn't "screw up" determinism's plan. The explanation would always end up being like 5 paragraphs of confusing babble

It's very easy really. It was always determined that you were going to build a machine which extrapolated the future of the universe and act upon what you saw. No paradox.

Free will is an illusion.... but isn't it my choice to believe that?

Originally Posted by jedimind

Free will is an illusion.... but isn't it my choice to believe that?

Not in determinism. It wouldn't be a choice, at least not in the levels we are talking about. The situations would converge to you believing or not in free will. As science says, what you are and think is determined by your genes and the sensorial input you receive through life. All you think happens due to chemical reactions in your brain, which follow strict laws.

Originally Posted by jedimind

Free will is an illusion.... but isn't it my choice to believe that?

No, but that's what it seems like doesn't it?

If we believe in fate, fate exists. If we ignore it, we have control. That's the persistent illusion; that's the paradox!

Alan Turing proved mathematically that there are some mathematical problems that can never be proven, no matter how much data you have and no matter how complex a computer is trying to solve it. Perhaps consciousness is one of those problems, and although we might achieve a good model of how it works, we will never reach a complete understanding of thoughts, never knowing if we choose our thoughts or whether our thoughts are decided by chance. Perhaps.

As to the universe in general, the scientific view is definitely on the side of quantum uncertainty, which is prevalent in practically every situation outside of a laboratory experiment. Given quantum uncertainty, a deterministic universe is impossible, but the outcome of events in the macroscale is fairly predictable.

Is there any proof quantum uncertainty really applies?

I agree with you entirely. It is already determined what will happen and when, however, the variables are countless, making it impossible for any human or computer to calculate it. Even if you had a computer that could measure everything, everywhere, it would take time to process it, and in that time, the variables have changed. Brain cells and the links between them have already changed inside humans, meaning they will react different to different situations. You would have to know the rule for every interaction between everything, and you would have to measure EVERYTHING at one given moment. Not a bit of delay. It's impossible to reach that. Electricity, light, ..., everything has a slight delay. That makes predictions impossible, meaning that to us humans, the future can not be predicted. Also, even if you were to measure things like the mood of humans, what kind of unit would you give to it? The amount of possible emotions, and the way a human's brain can handle them, are endless.
Building a machine with awareness is in fact possible. After all, we are basically highly complicated machines ourselves.
So yes, everything is determined, but there is nothing and nobody alive who can determine it, so the future is still a surprise, and we are not usually conscious of the fact that we are basically just highly complicated machines that can multiply ourselves. The element of surprise is what keeps this world interesting in my opinion. Even if we could predict the future, we would change our bahaviour to prevent the bad things that happen in the future, so the future would change again, and so on. The knowledge of the future would be a new piece of information that would change the future again, so a machine that could read the future would be useless to us. It would only work when we stopped reading it's information, so we still wouldn't know.

Originally Posted by Spyguy

I agree with you entirely.

So from the earliest flicker of light in the Big Bang, you were certain to necro this thread five years after its demise?